3a. Recreational Beachlot, Sunnyslope HOA f
I . C I T Y 0 F BOA DATE: April 25 , 1988
. ,
I \\ I '
F - C HANEASSZN C.C. DATE: April 25, 1988
CASE NO: 84-11 Variance
-----1,- ,
I ' .
Prepared by: Olsen/v
I STAFF REPORT
I
II PROPOSAL: Variance Request for Recreational Beachlot with a
Dock and Two Canoe Racks
I , !
0
ID. LOCATION: Lot 37 , Shore Acres
Cl.
. 0.. APPLICANT: Sunny Slope Homeowners Association --------- ----
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
II .
1 I
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
IACREAGE: 5 ,500 square feet
DENSITY:
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
I <IC S- Lake Riley
1....
I E- RSF; single family
g
W- RSF; single family
IW. WATER AND SEWER: Sewer is available, water is not available
(/)
IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is level and is a riparian lot.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
I
II
Sunny Slope HOA Variance
April 6 , 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Sections 20-263 of the City Code requires a recreational beachlot
to have at least 200 feet of lake frontage. This section also
requires that no dock shall be permitted on a recreational beach-
lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot
has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock may be
erected on a recreational beachlot for every 200 feet of lake
frontage and 30 ,000 square feet of land and no more than three
motorized or non-motorized watercraft per dock shall be allowed
to be stored overnight. No more than one canoe rack shall be
allowed per dock with no more than six watercraft stored on a
rack (Attachment #1) .
Section 20-1022 of the City Code permits a fence on riparian lots
to have a maximum height of 3i feet within the rear yard setback
( 75 feet from the OHWM) . Any other fence on a single family
lot may have a maximum height of 6z feet (Attachment #2) .
BACKGROUND
The applicant most recently requested a conditional use permit
for a recreational beachlot and a variance to the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance in the spring of 1986 . The conditional use
permit request in 1986 was for a recreational beachlot with the
following improvements :
1 . One 32 foot dock
2 . Overnight storage of four watercraft
3 . Two canoe racks ( 6 canoes each)
4 . Front and side yard fencing
5 . A 20 foot sand blanket
6 . A 12 ' x 21 ' storage building
The requested improvements to the recreational beachlot resulted
in the following items needing variances to the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance:
1 . One 32 foot dock
2 . The 12 ' x 21 ' storage building
3 . Overnight storage of four watercraft
On February 26 , 1986, the Planning Commission recommended denial
of the conditional use permit request (Attachment #3 ) . On April
21, 1986 , the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed the
variance requests and moved to have the City Council act on the
proposal (Attachment #4 ) . On April 21, 1986 , the City Council
moved to table action until the City Attorney provided findings
of fact for denial for the City Council to adopt. I
On May 5 , 1986, the City Council reviewed the findings of fact to
recommend denial of the variance and conditional use permit
11
II
Sunny Slope HOA Variance
April 6 , 1988
Page 3
' request for the recreational beachlot. At this meeting, the
representative for the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association, Steven
Burke, requested that the application for the conditional use
permit and the variances be withdrawn. The application was for-
mally withdrawn prior to the City Council acting on either the
variance or conditional use permit request.
' ANALYSIS
The applicant has submitted a new application for the conditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot and for variances to the
' Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to receive a final determination
from the City Council. The applicant is requesting a conditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot with the following impro-
vements:
1 . The installation of one dock adjacent to the lot of such size
' and shape as to conform to the requirements of the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance.
2 . Allow the overnight storage of up to three watercraft.
1 3 . Construct two canoe racks capable of storing six canoes on
each rack.
' 4 . Install front and side lot fencing on the property to provide
security and privacy.
' 5 . Landscape the north side of the property to bring the contour
of the lot in line with that of any neighbors to minimize
soil erosion onto the lake.
' The City Code requires a lot to have a minimum of 200 feet of
lake frontage to receive a conditional use permit for a
' recreational beachlot. The City Code requires a minimum of 200
feet of lakeshore, 30 , 000 square feet and 100 feet of lot depth
for a recreational beachlot to have a dock. The proposed
recreational beachlot has 50 feet of lake frontage, 110 feet of
' lot depth and 5 ,500 square feet of lot area. The regulations for
recreational beachlots permits one canoe rack per dock. The
applicant is requesting two canoe racks which would also require
a variance to the regulations which permits only one canoe rack
per dock.
The Planning Commission and City Council are responsible for
reviewing the conditional use permit request for the recreational
beachlot. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council
are responsible for reviewing the variance request to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance requirements .
I
11
Sunny Slope HOA Variance II
April 6 , 1988
Page 4
VARIANCE
The applicant is requesting a variance to the City Code regula-
tions
for a recreational beachlot to permit the following:
1 . Conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot without
the required 200 feet of lake frontage. ,
2 . Permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without the required
200 feet of frontage and 30 , 000 square feet of lot area.
3 . Permit a canoe rack on a recreational beachlot without a
dock.
4 . Permit one additional canoe rack over the permitted one canoe '
rack per dock.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the '
Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
following facts :
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
* Enforcement of the ordinance will not permit a recreational 1
beachlot. The lot could be developed as a single family lot
with certain variances.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands of structures in the same district.
* The lot is an existing lot of record which was developed for a
single family residence.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
* There are other options for use of the property.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self-created hardship.
* The lot is an existing lot of record and the hardship is not '
self-created.
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect I
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. I
* The lot was created as a single family lot. A recreational
beachlot could result in too intense of a use on a lot of this 11 size.
I
Sunny Slope HOA Variance
' April 6 , 1988
Page 5
' RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may approve, deny, or recom-
mend that the full Council consider this request. Based on past
meetings , the Board has passed this item to the City Council.
Should the City Council intend to deny the variance request, the
matter should be tabled so that the City Attorney can prepare
' findings of fact for denial. If approved, conditions of approval
may be established.
' ATTACHMENTS
1 . Section 20-263 of City Code.
2 . Section 20-1022 of City Code.
' 3 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 26 , 1986 .
4 . Board of Adjustments minutes dated March 17, 1986 .
5 . City Council minutes dated April 21, 1986 .
6 . City Council mintues dated May 5 , 1986 .
7 . Letter from applicant.
8 . Application.
9 . Citizen letters .
1
1
ZONING § 20-263
d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between ,
thirteen(13)and twenty-five(25)percent.
(2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five(25)percent shall not be considered as
a potential soil treatment site.
(3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless
approved by the city council.
(Ord.No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(7)), 12-15-86) ,
Sec. 20-260. Private stables.
The following applies to private stables:
(1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III.
(2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-261. State-licensed day care centers.
The following applies to state-licensed day care centers:
(1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with
traffic and pedestrian movements.
(2) Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas.
(3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(9)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-262. Hospitals and health care facilities. '
The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities:
(1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the
comprehensive plan.
(2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any '
residential use.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(10)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots.
The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in
/ addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit:
beach(1) Recreational ecreatonal each lots shall have at least
two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage.
1 1175
§ 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(2) No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house, camper, trailer,tent,recrea-
tional vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
' (3) No boat,trailer,motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars,trucks, motorcycles,
motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or
parked upon any recreational beach lot.
' (4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping.
(5) Boat launches are prohibited.
' (6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight
mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
' recreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed
number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be
allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may be stored over-
night on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed
for that purpose. No more than one(1)rack shall be allowed per dock. No more than
six(6)watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
' permissible at any time other than overnight.
(7) No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two
' hundred(200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred-foot depth. ,
No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot every two
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet
' of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20,000)
square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks,
however, shall be erected on a recreational beach lot.
' (8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock
shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance
necessary to reach a water depth of four(4)feet. The width(but not the length)of the
' cross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of
length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not
measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length.
' (9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the
owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within
' the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common
dock is the only dock on the two(2)lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms
with the provisions of this chapter.
(10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at
least two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one(1)sail boat mooring
shall be allowed for every two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage.
(11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the
subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms
1176
ZONING § 20-280 ,
shall mean those beach lots which are located either within(urban)or outside(rural)
the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the com-
prehensive plan.
a. Urban recreational beach lot: At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, '
which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be
located within one thousand(1,000)feet of the recreational beach lot.
b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including
riparian lots)shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational
beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the
rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply.
(12) All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to
February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming
areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States
Coast Guard standards.
(13) Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured both at the ordinary high
water mark and at a point one hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high
water mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling unit which has
appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot accruing to the owners or
occupants of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner association
or residential housing developers. ,
(14) Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted
to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. '
(15) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall
be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(11)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-A, § 1, 6-15-87)
Sec. 20-264. Electrical substations. '
Electrical substations are subject to the following conditions:
(1) The substation must be served by a collector or major arterial street as desginated in
the comprehensive plan.
(2) The substation will not have sanitary facilities and will not be used for habitation.
(3) The substation will be located on at least five (5) acres of property.
(4) A six-foot high security fence shall surround the substation.
(5) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for city approval.
(6) Substations shall be a minimum of five hundred(500)feet from single-family residences.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(13)), 12-15-86) '
Secs. 20-265-20-280. Reserved.
1177
-
I .
§ 20-1001 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
C(4) Animals being kept as part of the Minnesota Zoological Garden's or St. Paul Como
IZoo's docent programs are in allowed use in all zoning districts. Before such animals
are allowed,however,the participant in the program must receive the approval of the
council regarding participation in the program and identify the animal being kept.
(5) Animals may only be kept for commercial purposes if authorized in the zoning
district were the animals are located.
I (6) Animals may not be kept if they cause a nuisance or endanger the health or safety of
the community.
I (7) Other animals may be allowed by conditional use permit.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 9(6-9-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1002. Care and treatment.
IAnimals kept within any zoning district shall be subject to the following requirements:
(1) The size, number, species, facilities for and location of animals kept shall be main-
, tained so as not to constitute a danger or nuisance by means of odor, noise or
otherwise.
(2) Facilities for housing animals shall be:
Ia. Constructed of such material as is appropriate for the animals involved.
b. Maintained in good repair.
I c. Controlled as to temperature, ventilated and lighted compatible with the health ( ,
and comfort of the animals.
d. Of sufficient size to allow adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may
I be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition of debility, stress or
abnormal behavior patterns.
e. Cleaned as often as necessary to prevent contamination of the animals contained
Itherein and to minimize disease hazards and reduce odors.
(3) Animals shall be provided wholesome,palatable food and water free from contamina-
tion and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain all animals in good
Ihealth.
(4) Animals kept in pet shops or kennels shall be kept in accordance with regulations for
pet shops and kennels in addition to the regulations provided by this division. Pet
I shop or kennel owners shall receive a license as required by the city.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6-9-2, 12-15-86)
ISecs. 20-1003-20-1015. Reserved.
DIVISION 5. FENCES AND WALLS
ISec. 20-1016. Intent.
The intent of this division is to provide standards for fences along the perimeter of lots
I that act as boundaries and/or barriers.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-1), 12-15-86)
I 1240
ZONING § 20-1021 '
Sec. 20-1017. Permit. '
A building permit shall be obtained for any fence installed for any purpose other than an
agricultural purpose prior to installation of same. A site plan showing location of the fence
shall be submitted with the permit application. The building official may require a fence
permit application to provide a registered land survey establishing property lines.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-2, 6-12-4, 6-12-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1018. Commercial and industrial fences.
Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or
industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight(8)feet. When commercial or industrial
uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses,a fence at least six(6)feet in height shall
be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial property. Said fence
must be one hundred(100)percent opaque. Commercial or industrial fences over eight(8)feet
shall require a conditional use permit.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 12(6-12-10), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1019. Location.
All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner
of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the property
line of the respective properties.Such an agreement shall be submitted at the time of building
permit application.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1020. Construction and maintenance.
Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material
reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall
be maintained in such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore, or public or private
nuisance.All fences shall be constructed so that the side containing the framing supports and
cross pieces face the interior of the fence owner's lot. Any fence which does not comply with
the provisions of this chapter or which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall be
considered a public nuisance. Abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city
official after fifteen(15) days notification, if the owner of such fence has not undertaken the
necessary repairs to abate the nuisance. Link fences shall be constructed in such a manner
that no barbed ends shall be exposed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1021. Swimming pool fences.
All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence not less than four (4) feet
in height. All gates shall have the latch installed on the pool side of the fence. All in-ground
pools installed prior to February 19, 1987 shall comply with this chapter within one hundred
eighty(180)days of such date.Subsection(a)does not apply to pools inaccessible from adjacent
properties or which are located on property completely enclosed by a perimeter fence four(4)
feet in height.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-7), 12-15-86)
1241
I . ' .
I § 20-1022 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
I ' Sec. 20-1022. Shoreline fences.
Fences to be installed on riparian lots shall have a maximum height of three and one-half
I (312)feet in the rear yard(lake side).
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 12(6-12-8), 12-15-86)
ISec. 20-1023. Height.
Any fence over six and one-half(61/2)feet must receive a conditional use permit.The fence
height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence.
I (Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 12(6-12-9), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1024-20-1040. Reserved.
IDIVISION 6. WIND ENERGY
CONVERSION SYSTEMS(WECS)
ISec. 20-1041. Purpose.
The purpose of this division is to establish standards and procedures by which the
I installation and operation of WECS shall be governed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-1), 12-15-86)
ISec. 20-1042. Ornamental wind devices.
Ornamental wind devices that are not a WECS shall be exempt from the provisions of this
division and shall conform to other applicable provisions of this chapter.
I (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-8), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1043. When allowed.
I
Wind conversion systems may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the regulations
and requirements of this division, provided the property upon which the system is to be
I located is zoned agricultural, commercial or industrial and is constructed and maintained on
any parcel of at least two and one-half(21/2)acres in size.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1044. Declaration of conditions.
' The planning commission may recommend and the city council may impose such condi-
tions on the granting of WECS conditional use permit as may be necessary to carry out the
purpose and provisions of this division.
I (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1045. Site plan.
IAll applications for a WECS conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a detailed
site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned, displaying the following information:
(1) Lot lines and dimensions.
I
1242
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
II
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26 , 1986 1
Vice-Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m.
I
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tim Erhart , Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard I
Noziska and Mike Thompson.
MEMBERS ABSENT
I
Bill Ryan
STAFF PRESENT I
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst . City Planner and Vicki Churchill, Secretary.
IIPUBLIC HEARING
/ Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot and to
I
construct a storage building on 5 ,500 square feet of property
Iczoned R-1 and located at 9241 Lake Riley Boulevard , Sunnyslope
Homeowner ' s Association , applicant
I
Public Present
■
Steve Burke applicant
II
Bill Boyt 7204 Kiowa Circle
Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd.
Rudy & Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd.
I
Mairan DeWitt 9225 Lake Riley Blvd.
Paul & Suzanne Olson 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.
Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
IDon Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Olsen stated that the Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association pre-
viously applied for a conditional use permit to allow the lot to
I
become a recreational beachlot and have an existing dock comply
with the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission considered
the request on August 8, 1984 for the beachlot which also
II
requested permission to:
1 . Install a seasonal dock.
2 . Install two canoe racks.
II
3 . Install a privacy fence.
4. Allow overnight storage of four watercraft .
Olsen stated that the request required variances to the I
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to allow overnight storage of
four watercraft and a dock on a lot with less than 100 feet in I
width. She stated that the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to
deny the conditional use permit request for a recreational beach-
lot .
II
4#3
II
1 •
Planning Commission Minutes
I February 26 , 1986
Page 2
She stated that the conditional use ermit and d variance requests
were withdrawn by the applicant before it was reviewed by the
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council. She
stated that the applicant stated that DNR allowed the dock, for
storage of four watercraft , without the need of a permit. She
' stated that the City replied that a dock could not be a principle
use of a property and ordered the dock removed.
Olsen stated that the applicant is again requesting a conditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot with the following
improvements:
' 1 . One 32 foot dock.
2 . Overnight storage of four watercraft .
3 . Two canoe racks ( 6 canoes each) .
' 4. Front and side yard fencing.
5 . A 20 foot sand blanket.
6 . A 12 ' x 21 ' storage building.
Olsen stated that the Zoning Ordinance states that a recreational
beachlot must have at least four lineal feet for each dwelling
unit that has access to the recreational beachlot. She stated
I that Sunny Slope Addition has 12 dwelling units which results in
a minimum requirement of 48 feet for a recreational beachlot .
She stated that the ordinance also states that there must be at
least 100 feet at the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100
feet landward for a recreational beachlot to have a seasonal
dock. She explained that the lot has enough width to be used as
a beachlot , but 100 feet is required for a seasonal dock and thus
the need for a variance.
Olsen also explained that the applicant is proposing to construct
a 12 ' x 21 ' storage building, approximately 70 feet from the
ordinary high water mark. She stated that Section 7.04 ( 9 [Al )
states that no structure shall be erected on a recreational
beachlot and again a variance will be required for the storage
building.
Olsen explained that a third variance is required for the over-
night storage of four watercraft in which section 7. 04 ( 9[D ] )
prohibits the overnight storage of watercraft. She stated that
the same section does allow the storage of canoes.
Olsen stated that these variances are scheduled for review by the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council on March 17 ,
1986 .
' Olsen explained that the proposed sand blanket is regulated by
the DNR and the applicant will have to receive DNR approval.
I
I
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 3
She stated that details of the proposed fencing have not been
submitted, but staff is recommending that it not exceed six feet
in height to reduce screening the view of the lake from adjacent
residences. ,
Steve Burke stated that the Homeowner ' s Association is attempting
to develop its lot into a recreational beachlot . He stated that
they have looked at this in a number of ways with their attorney
and their attorney indicates that they should request one more
time from the City, to have the lot designated as a recreational
beachlot with the improvements indicated which are slightly dif-
ferent from the previous request. He stated that the Homeowner ' s
Association has attempted to look into the future and ask for
what they feel will accommodate them at that time. He stated
without access to the lake , the lot holds very little value to
them. He stated that their attorney has told them that they have
a couple of options. He stated that one is to come back and see
if they can get the recreational beachlot as submitted. He
stated that if they can not get approval of the request , the
other option would be to build a single family home on the pro-
perty. He stated that the lots next to the subject lot received
variances to construct a single family residence and felt that
they could also receive those variances. He stated that if they
Cbuilt a single family home on the lot , they would automatically
be allowed a dock with up to five boats to be stored overnight .
He stated that what he is looking for is feedback from the neigh-
bors that are present tonight to find out if their preference
would be to construct a home on the property. He stated that the
lot , even though it is undersized, has the riparian right to
install one dock and keep five boats overnight on it . He stated
they intend to obtain that and start using that . He stated that
at this point they want to get input from the City and neighbors
and determine if a single family home or if they should go with
the recreational beachlot with the improvements.
Joy Tanner stated that she is located on the opposite side of the
lot from the Olson ' s. She stated that she is opposed to the
recreational beachlot . She stated that based on the ordinance,
everything they are proposing is contradictory to the spirit of
the R-1 zoning. She stated that she thought she was assured in
1978 when Allen Gray requested a beachlot , that the because of
the R-1 zoning and because of the ordinances , there would be no
chance that anything but canoes would be used , no motorized traf-
fic over the lot , no RV' s, no trailers , no snowmobiles and no
overnight boat storage. She stated that last year when the dock
was in the water , there were boats stored overnight . She stated
that boats were launched from the lot . She asked Mr. Burke if he
could see the lot from his home? 1
Mr. Burke stated that he could but not very well .
I
I
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 4
C
' Joy Kanner stated that it would be very difficult to monitor the
lot and she has seen people driving by the area looking for a
place to launch their boat .
Mr. Burke stated that they did have a dock on the lot for a while
until we got a notice from the City . He stated that the lot is
' zoned R-1 , and it allows for a dock, boats , the launch of boats
and motorzied vehicle parking on the lot. He stated that
everything they were doing did not apply at the time the City
' sent the notice. He stated that they understand that if the
request is approved for a recreational beachlot and improvements ,
they will not be able to launch boats over the lot. He stated
that when the city indicated in their letter to them that until
such time that proper use of the lot , which would be a home , the
dock can not be put out. He stated that they did not say a dock
could not be there. He stated to the neighbors that once the
homeowner ' s assocation has put up a house, they can put their
dock out , put their boats out , park the trailers on the property,
drive across and launch the boats as the lakeshore property
' owners can. He stated that he would hope that they understand
the benefits of making it a recreational beachlot instead of
having a home constructed on the lot.
I C Don Sitter stated that he lives a few blocks down from the lot in
question and wondered how the Planning Commission feels because
Mr . Burke has been honest and stated that if he does not get the
beachlot , they will construct a home on the lot? He asked what
the Planning Commission ' s opinion was on building a home there
owned by an organization, a communitable property home? He asked
if there were ordinances or are there precedents?
Steve Burke stated that he thinks the answer to that is in the
ordinances as a definition of a person . He stated that a defini-
tion of a person is an individual, a corporation, partnership,
trustee , a homeowner ' s association, and a person has the right to
construct a home.
' Conrad stated that he is not going to ask the Planning Commission
to directly respond to that; however , you will hear their
thoughts after the public hearing is closed. He stated that we
' are to react to the request . He stated that it is the appli-
cant ' s property and he can do whatever he gets permission to do .
He stated that the applicant wants to see if the city is going to
1 grant variances to do that. He stated that he is correct in
saying that if he receives variances to build a home, he can put
out five boats, however, those boats are not typically owned by
anyone other than who lives in the home. He stated that owners
of lakeshore typically use one boat at a time.
Paul Olson stated that he lives next door to the lot. He stated
that he is opposed to it mostly because he does not see how the
city can allow more people on the lake in these instances while
Plannin g Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 5
C
they are holding them off at the launches everywhere else. He
stated that the idea of four boats on 50 feet , there is not going
to be much more room to move. He stated that they will be moving
over into my area or my neighbors beach area. He stated that he
is opposed to the safety outlook because there is not room for
four boats on the lot .
Marian DeWitt stated that she is opposed to it in that if access
is granted to the lake for Sunny Slope right between two homes ,
all of the protection and security of the R-1 zoning is lost .
She stated that all the problems and traffic with a group of
people would have to be contended with instead of just one family
for which it is zoned. She wanted to read from the zoning
department standards for the granting of conditional use permits ,
which she said some are debateable; however , one just hits it .
"That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted. Not to essentially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood. " She stated that
there was no doubt in her mind that it has already happened to
the neighbors on either side of the lot have had their enjoyment
impaired. She stated that she felt if they were to try and sell
their property should the conditional use permit be granted ,
there would be marked loss in property value. She stated that
k_ when granting conditional use permits , the Commission should keep
in mind that the permit goes with the property, not the indivi-
duals , and once granted it is there for life. She asked about
what would happen if the homeowner ' s association sold the lot to
a big corporation from Chicago. She stated that they could rent
it out or do anything within the regulations, and then the city
has lost control. She stated that conditional use permits should
be handed out very carefully . She stated that as for the argu-
ment about the one family home and having five boats , she stated
that they will meet that when it comes . She stated that she
would not object to a single family home, but with a number of
owners of one home , yes she would object .
M. Thompson moved, seconded by Emmings , to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
M. Thompson stated that some of the members on the Planning
Commission established the Beachlot Ordinance to control what 1
property owners who did not live on the lake could do on the lake
with a beachlot . He stated that the idea was not to necessarily
allow unconditionally people that lived off of the lake but had
some access or common lot . He stated that the Planning
Commission has abided by the ordinance as written . He stated
that there were amendments proposed to the ordinance and they
were denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council . He
stated that he does not see the Commission swaying from the deci-
sion of one year ago .
I
1 ,
Planning Commission Minutes
' February 26 , 1986
Page 6
C
Tim Erhart stated that he did not feel Steve Burke was making a
threat . He stated in reading what was presented, they are
currently paying taxes. He asked what the sizes of the lots next
to the subject lot were.
Olsen stated that she did not have the sizes; however , thought
they were approximately the same size. She stated that they
both received variances to build a home.
Erhart said to the applicant that he did not hear him say that
' if a home was built the title would be owned by the homeowners.
Burke stated that the title of property would probably remain in
the name of Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association.
Emmings asked how many lots were in there and how many homes?
' Burke stated that presently there are seven and one will be
constructed in the spring. He stated that he does not know of
the plans for the other lots.
Emmings stated that the use of that lot by twelve households and
their friends and acquaintances on any given day is much too much
use of that small of a piece land. He stated that he was
persuaded most by the people who live close by the beachlot that
would be opposed.
Siegel stated that he also feels there will be an over usage of
the area. He stated that the association would possibly seek
to do something else with the property as far as its investment
as an association and seek other methods of use.
Conrad stated that he still feels that the ordinance is valid.
He stated that the lot could be used as a recreational beachlot
could under certain circumstances. He does not see this request
as being appropriate . He stated that he feels there is good
rationale in the ordinance and does not see anything to persuade
' him to see it differently. He felt that the request as presented
would be an overuse of the parcel .
' Emmings moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to recommend denial of the
conditional use permit as proposed. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Emmings felt that should the City Council approve the conditional
use permit , they should take the following points into account:
' 1 . The canoe rack and sand blanket should be allowed as long as
it meets the DNR requirements.
2 . They should not be allowed to have a dock , or overnight
storage of watercraft , or a building on the lot.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986 1
Page 7
3 . He also stated that there should be some negotiations with
the neighbors and city staff on fencing as far as materials
and size.
Barbara Dacy
City Planner '
Prepared by Vicki Churchill
March 3 , 1986
1
1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES
' MARCH 17 , 1986
' CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6: 30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Dale Geving .
' STAFF PRESENT
' Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING
Shoreland Setback Variance Request , 9235 Lake Riley Blvd . ,
Craig Halverson
' Olsen explained that the Halverson variance was withdrawn by the
applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING
tVariance Request to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance, it 37 ,
Shore Acres , Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association
- Public Present
' Steve Burke Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s President
Olsen stated that the applicant is requesting a conditional use
permit for a recreational beachlot. She noted that the Planning
Commission reviewed the conditional use permit request on
February 26 , 1986 and unanimously recommended denial of the use
as proposed. She stated that the City Council will review the
conditional use permit request on March 17 , 1986 .
Olsen stated that the applicant is also requesting the following
three variances to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance:
1 . Variance to Section 7. 04 (9 [ F] ) to allow one seasonal
dock on a recreational beachlot having a width of less
' than 100 feet.
2 . Variance to Section 7. 04 (9 [D ] ) to allow the overnight
' storage of four watercraft.
3 . Variance to Section 7. 04 (9 [A] ) to allow a structure on
a recreational beachlot.
Steve Burke stated that this was not a new issue. He stated that
the Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association intended on using the
14
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes
March 17 , 1986
Page 2
property as either a beachlot or a single family residence and '
that they would prefer a recreational beachlot . He also stated
that he felt the neighbors would prefer a recreational beachlot .
He stated the lot has riparian rights for five boats with
launching and overnight storage.
Watson asked if they could have the dock without a single family
residence on the lot?
Olsen answered that a dock is not a principle use and would
require a single family residence. '
Burke stated that they are willing to give up the right for a
single family residence for a more restrictive use. The con-
ditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot puts restrictions
on the property.
Geving asked Burke if there was anything in the documents when
they bought the property that stated they had rights to use it as
a beachlot or gave Sunny Slope rights to use the lake?
Burke stated no.
Geving stated his own preference to have the property used as a
single family residence. He stated that the proposed building
( boat house) is new to the previous requests .
Burke stated that they are asking for everything now rather than '
coming in again .
Geving stated that the three variances complicated the issue. He
asked if the applicant understood that the Board of Adjustments
would not act on this tonight , that it would be passed on to the
City Council. '
Burke stated that he understood.
Geving moved, seconded by Watson, to close the public hearing . '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Geving moved, seconded by Watson, to pass the proposal on to the
City Council for their decision.
Geving moved, seconded by Watson , to approve the February 24 ,
1986 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Watson moved, seconded by Geving , to adjourn the meeting at 7: 00
p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I/
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
II
Sometime ago the City received a petition from Opus Corporation concerning a replot of a portion of
the business plot into the 5th Addition. I believe council members are quite familiar with the redesign
of a cul de sac to make the lots more usable. The City has now worked through the public improvement
process to the point where we have solicited bids and four bids were received as shown on the bid tab.
The lower bid is from Volk Trucking and Excavating in the amount of $199,818.05 and based on the contents
of your packets, that is recommending that the award be made to the low bidder in that amount. If there
are questions, I'll try to answer them. I don't want to draw this out.
I Councilman Geving: One of the comments that was made here by the ICN, tentative award. Do we have
any reason for making that statement? Usually they let out recommendations. OK. No comment.
I Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following:
To accept the bid from Volk Trucking and Excavating in the amount of $199,818.05 for the
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition.
IIMotion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
IMayor Hamilton: The next item is the Sunnyslope Homeowners Association. Steven Burke is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot and Variance to a Recreational Beachlot Requirements.
would like to call on Steve. If you have anything additional you would want to add that we haven't
II
heard previously, please present it now. I think we've gone over this so many times, we are all familiar
with it.
I Steven Burke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The couple questions and points I want to bring up. I know we've
been going after this for two years. What we wanted to do at this point was resolve this situation
before this summer comes about and it's our hope that the Council will tonite approve the Recreational
Beachlot with the variances necessary for the improvements that we are talking about. I do want to
point out in the packet that was sent out, there was reference to a boathouse. At no time had we applied
for a boathouse. I think that was in Adjustment of Appeals. It was misinterpreted. The structure
that was indicated was a storage shed for life preservers, canoe paddles, etc. It was indicated that
I that type of structure we would not be able to store gas. We realize that. We are looking for what
I call a storage building, one of these things that you can buy from Sears. We are not looking for
a boathouse to store boats in that and so- I know that you won't be thinking that's what we are looking
I for. A couple of questions I am looking at are that we have been given a number of conflicting reports.
We have been told by the City that the City has jurisdiction over that lake and that's why we had to pull
the dock last summer, yet about three months ago I asked the City to enforce their right to have docks
pulled out of that lake for the people who left in those seasonal docks and I received a letter from
I the City informing us that the City has no jurisdiction over that lake and therefore cannot require
anyone to pull seasonal docks. And the only jurisdiction on that lake was the DNR ordinance, which
was what we said when we reinstalled it. And, Barbara is aware of this because she responded to me
I after having to check that. The other thing that I know you all know is what Roger gave you his legal
opinion on regarding how he felt the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance was not going to be dependable
in court and we don't want to go to the court system, but I Roger shaking his head. Barbara knows I've
seen it, but that's something is a communication. Barbara can address that if you want.
IICouncilman Geving: I don't know how you would have seen that.
I Steven Burke: It was accidently left in one of the files upstairs. I asked for a copy of it. She
came back after making calls saying I can't have that.
Roger Knutson: I think what he is referring to is I did not say it .
Steven Burke: Anyway, what we were hoping that you will take a look at what we are asking for and as I
stated before we feel that as an RI lot, if we put a structure up, we could have that dock and we could
II
I
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
_4
have the boats stored overnight. We think the neighborhood would
9 prefer not to have us build a house
down there or have any house on that lot, but have a lot that is a Recreational Beachlot being used by
neighbors, not people way out. It's not like a Lotus Lake with lots and lots of people. We have twelve
[—
and we are a little bit short. We know we are. We are asking for the variances to allow that and we
think we know we are willing to fall under the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance and all of the restrivtive
guidelines that go with that if you will let us become a Recreational Beachlot with that -one dock and
with only four boats, we will determine how we which four boats go out there. We looked at a lot that
has a right to have a dock and five boats and with a house, and we are willing to give up the house, the
ability to launch across the property, park on the property, etc. If you will leave us the right to have
that dock and four boats and we will then fall under the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. Thank you.
Tom Hamilton: Councilmen have any questions?
Councilman Geving: Has your homeowners association ever been assessed for a sewer?
Steven Burke: Yes, we have.
Councilman Geving: You are paying for that now?
Steven Burke: Yes, we are.
Councilman Horn: I would move denial of the Sunnyslope Conditional Use Permit and Variance request.
Councilwoman Watson seconded. Roger Knutson: Based upon your discussion on the
packet materials. The
motion would be to direct the City Attorney's office with their findings based on discussions before you
and the Board of Adjustment Appeals as in the Planner's report. ,
1
Councilman Horn: I amend my motion to include specific findings for denial
Councilwomen Watson seconded. The following voted in favor to deny: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson
and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Steven Burke: May I ask you said the recommendation was for denial based upon findings before this group
and the Board of Adjustment Appeals. I guess that my question that then if you take a look at it if you
don't find basis for denial, at this point, has the decision been made or is the decision made on your
findings? '
Roger Knutson: The decision is not made by me. The decision is made by the Council and they will review
my findings at the next meeting and if they agree with my findings, we will stop them, if they are not in
agreement, ok.
Tom Hamilton: Does that clarify it for you?
Steven Burke: Yes.
Tom Hamilton: The next item on the agenda is the bill dated April 21, 1986.
Clark Horn: Page 11, check no. 26444. Rotary Club membership for Jim Castleberry.
Don Ashworth: Yes. '
Clark Horn: Is this a mandatory requirement of his position?
Tom Hamilton: No, it's not. It was a suggestion by me that Jim join and has attended several meetings of
017
the Chaska Rotary. They have several city officials who are members of that club and I felt it would be
very advantageous for Jim or someone else on our staff to be a member of the Rotary, to have input from
I
40
I ' Chanhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -10-
items listed were implications for the City of Chanhassen. She stated that the
City would need to establish a recycling program, continued operation of yard
waste programs, cooperation and participation with the County and looking at
[-
I implementation of all these solid waste strategies as well as participating in
research for resource recovery facilities, public education on recycling,
backyard composting, paper reduction and even an office recycling program for
' Chanhassen City Offices. She stated that the Planning Department is to
establish a solid waste advisory oamnittee to assist the Council in implementing
some of the programs. She noted that a target date of 1987 for a drop-off
recycling center is anticipated, with a curb side collection program by 1990.
' Mike Lien stated that the County is very serious about the whole solid waste
affair and 95% of his job is solid waste abatement. He presented the draft and
' conmented that he has been attending Council meetings around the County. He
stated that there is always a need for a drop off recycling center and strongly
recommended the City pursue the issue.
' Mayor Hamilton stated that he would like to see a committee formed from the
Chamber of Commerce, business community, etc. and really investigate the
programs. He also suggested advertising for volunteers to help seek local
' financing in addition to the state funding.
No action was taken.
SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, STEVEN BURKE:
a. Request for Conditional Use Permit for Recreational Beachlot
' b. Variance Request to Recreational Beachlot Requirements
Mayor Hamilton: At the Council meeting on April 21, 1986, the Council moved to
' deny the request based on the findings of the City Attorney which was based on
oomnents made by the City Council. We have such findings of facts presented to
us. I think if the Councilmembers have any questions about this, we can do
' that. What we can do, our action for this evening, is approve of the applicant's
request for conditional use for recreational beachlot with five conditions.
There is also a variance to deal with and I suggest that this be denied.
1 Steven Burke: When we made our application for the recreational beachlot.
I just have three questions. If the Council were to approve and make that a
recreational beachlot tonight, at this point, it is our intention to
to file for a building permit application variance to do that, but if we allow
that it be made a recreational beachlot and until such time as we apply for that
variance in order to build a structure down there, will by allowing it to be
made a recreational beachlot, have any bearing or affect on our application, at
' such time as we make it to have the structure built? If it does, we do not want
it changed to be designated a recreational beachlot. So that would be my first
question. If it's going to make no difference on the application at whatever
' time we file an application, then we would let it became a recreational beach-
lot because I think what we can do then, which I belive we can't do now, is put
up the canoe racks. The other question is as a vacant R-1 lot, what can happen
upon a vacant R-1 lot in this city? Is it better for us to just leave it
vacant? Those are the two questions I have. I know what recreational beachlots
can do because it is detailed in your beachlot ordinance. Can we have a house?
•
City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -11- - fi ' II
Can we store a boat trailer down there? Could we put a storage building down
II
there? Now, when we say we are talking within the entire community on all our
own lots until a house is built, can a person store firewood or store a boat
trailer, or more importantly for use we have that dock that we're talking about I
now. Can we leave that there without being in violation of some ordinance?
Roger Knutson: If you put up a boat shed, or what have you, it can only go in
as an accessory use, not as a principle use. To be a principle use you have to
II
put a house on it.
Steven Burke: that you are saying then is that all lots in the City, regardless
II
of just owned by homeowners, a house has to be there before boats can be stored,
before storage sheds can go on. Specifically, the question I need to find out
is if we leave it just a vacant lot, we presently have the dock on the property.
Are we going to be cited in being in violation of that that ordinance?
I
Roger Knutson: Just sitting on the land? At some point, the City has to make a
decision as to whether violations are occurring. In my point of view, if II someone has some minor things on an empty lot, it probably won't cane to
anyone's attention. Nothing illegal is done, we have a limited budget to make
sure no one doesn't have anything sitting anyplace. As far as whether that dock II that is not being used sitting on a lot, I guess I would probably say it is a
technical violation.
Steven Burke: I'm certain that because it's gone this far, we may have sane
II
complaints from the neighbors on either side who may say, "You've been told you
can't put a dock out, thy are they being allowed to leave this structure
there?" And, if that's going to be in violation of the ordinance, if we move it II across the street onto one of the lots that aren't on the lake that isn't built
on yet, we're still in violation of the ordinance. The only thing it seems we
can do is move it across onto a built lot and so what do we do with the thing?
Roger Knutson: In my own mind, a lot of those things probably would be found to II
be and that would be a prosecution.
Steven Burke: I guess that answers the second question, but I need to come back II
to the first question and that is if we allow it to become a recreational
beachlot at this time, if at anytime in the future be it a week or two years II from now, we one forward and say that we are now making application for
variance to build that structure down there, is it going to be affected by
allowing it to be changed to a recreational beachlot?
Roger Knutson: Coe of the things that you might very well consider is that one I
of the basis for variance is no other uses for the property without the
variance. Conceivably, if you already had a recreational beachlot approved and
II
running, that gives you the use of your property.
Steven Burke: That being the case, it appears to us that we should leave it II since we do intend on building as a vacant R-1 lot and it appears that we could
theoretically leave the dock down there until such time that we were cited and
at that time we would have to move it to some place that it would not get cited
or sell it. I
II
II
11 . ' Chanhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986
-12-
Roger Knutson: If I am hearing you right, you wish to withdraw your application?
Steven Burke: Yes, we do. We will leave it as it exists today. Can I ask one
further question? The adjoining property owners have complained that we have
not had sufficient security down there to prevent people from launching. We
have put in a couple of fenceposts. It is my belief that we are not in viola-
tion of an ordinance as an R-1 lot owner to fence our property for the security
and safety of the neighborhood.
Roger Knutson: That should not be in violation.
' Steven Burke: We would then formally like to withdraw the aAA lication
'
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR 126 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, CHANHASSEN VISTA SUBDIVISION,
EAST OF KERBER BOULEVARD, ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES, INC.
Mayor Hamilton: We asked staff to come back this evening and give us a synopsis
of the comments that had been made at the previous Council meeting so the devel-
oper would have a clearer idea of what the Council's position was on some of
the major issues dealing with this subdivision.
Councilman Horn: I think Barbara pretty well covered the issue and I think
there are still a few decisions to be made. We should note that Number 5 is
still purely a staff recommendation. I don't believe the Council has given
clear direction to the developer.
Mayor Hamilton: I am not sure if we need to at this time. When you have a
sketch plan review we are merely trying to point out the areas of greatest con-
cern to us and then it is up to the developer to go back and either incorporate
those into his plan or to leave them out. Am I correct?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, the sketch plan review is exactly that. Regarding the
Frontier Trail connection and the Saratoga connection to Kerber Blvd., I
believe that the applicant has stated that they would be amenable to either
recommendation of the Council - either to connect it or cul-de-sac it. However,
staff remains firm on it's recommendation that these connections be made and
thus the reason we included the memo from the Public Safety Director. The
' Engineer has prepared some additional information regarding traffic patterns,
etc. If you want to explore each of these issues in further detail, the appli-
cant is here.
tMayor Hamilton: That's fine. I guess it was my feeling that we did not have
this on the agenda to explore anything further other than to make certain that
' the comments that were made on this issue at the last Council meeting was being
represented in your memo. I don't want to look at a new plan. I feel we should
just pass on our comments and at that point it goes back to the Planning
Commission and its up to the developer at that point if they want to incorporate
' any of these ideas we've had. The Planning Commission will then make a recom-
mendation to us as to how they see it and then proceed. That's how I see this
particular issue.
Don Ashworth: It is a sketch plan and the City Council need not take any speci-
fic action. The items in front of you represent the statements you made before
and you may wish to add or delete to those.
I
11
ry '
Sunny Slope
Homeowners
Association
Sunny Slope Homeowners Association (SSHA) hereby makes ap-
plication to the City of Chanhassen for a Conditional Use Permit
and Variance to permit the following improvements to Lot 37 Shore
Acres: i
- to designate this property as a recreational beach
lot for Sunny Slope Homeowners Association.
- to allow the installation of one dock adjacent to the
lot of such size and shape as to conform to the require-
ments of the recreational beach lot ordinance, in the
that regard.
- to allow the overnight storage of up to three (3)
boats overnight on that dock.
- to construct two (2) canoe racks, capable of storing
six (6) canoes on each rack.
- to install front and side lot fencing on the property
to provide security and privacy. '
- to landscape the north side of the property to bring
the contour of the lot in line with that of the im-
mediate neighbors to minimize soil erosion into tt'ie
lake.
While Lot 37 Shore Acres is substandard in size, it repre-
sents a buildable lot with the riparian right to install one dock
and store three (3) boats overnight on that dock. SSHA, the
owner of that lot, is requesting that the lot be designated a
recreational beach lot for the association as long as the
riparian right to install a dock and keep boats overnight is not
lost or diminished in any way.
This lot serves the twelve (12) families of SSHA and its 50
feet of shoreline is consistent with the regulation pertaining to
lineal feet per household served. The lots to be served also
meet the proximity requirements for a recreational beach lot.
A variance is requested for the installation of the dock and
overnight storage of up to three (3) boats since neither of the
immediate adjacent properties are for sale or are likely to be
marketed in the foreseeable future. There is also no vacant
property available which would meet the city' s requirements for a
recreational beach lot with a dock and boats without' a variance.
SSHA therefore makes this application before the City of Chanhas-
sen and respectfully requests that the Conditional Use Permit and
the Variance be granted as applied for.
1°1( 1
.... ,
ILit,e - E
I
I :
_
,
I
I
1
• AI
ICA Pf 0.G.
4:17
R A C.C.S 1 I°1C11-14
I At
(1
1
I
Li
I
JO
I
I
I t
Pc'
I if
0
a twi6
II
0-----tv- t.C)L6
--N
1
'_—
LA KY- R/Z y
__-------
-----
Z07- 3 7 .5-/74:veE /10,e5S .5(INA/I ...521) ::: Ale v Y 67064-WERS A15-00 11477 Oni
I
I/
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
I
APPLICANT: 512 / L 1 E OWNER: SUNn1/ 'LcPE WohleC JE-Rs 4-S5GC
ADDRESS 340 DE67' Foor 1 ADDRESS 414 5-t au.=ict- 34° Detwr-ori I
ettf}5KI- i 5-53i8 eif45,.4- pit/ ,-c3ri
Zip Code Zip Code I
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 910 -745-V TELEPHONE 47W-765-4{
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development I
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
I
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision I
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
I
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit II
PROJECT NAME Rai=Cr i7Cavt)L t'is/}e 1-di T;k Sv/./N/ ji,c. imEbk„, ,4-sq'
IPRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION l'A'W/O-LA/13
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION l;ft:0_fmo,J 44f}01,t LT I
PRESENT ZONINGi
REQUESTED ZONING K; (
I
USES PROPOSED j.r �ie[- i.2,i4. ilr'c . Tl;-r;;5(3) _
'
bL�X
SIZE OF PROPERTY (iO
LOCATION L 37 -5rtmE lief
• REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST TD Fo)LLy UT7L/Zi= 1-07 I
I
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) 407- 37 Srt-Okc= ACREs I
MAAR 1 ; 938
el FY OF CHANHASSEN,
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
' clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
' The undersigned representative
that he is familiar with theproceduralprequirements bofcallifies
applicable City Ordinances .
Signed By 6GrL ' ,
Date A gg
Applicant
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
v
Signed By ,•/y �� � �- 77:��zs2 Date
Fee Owner
Date Application Received H
•
Application Fee Paid V-
' City Receipt No.
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
•
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting .
I
I
I
Chanhassen Planning Commission
From: George and Marian DeWitt
Re: Application by Sunny Slope Homeowwners Association for
conditional use permit for lot 77, Shore Acres.
This is the fourth attempt over a ten year period by Sunny Slope
Homeowners Association to obtain a legal means for that group to use
lot 37 of Shore Acres on Lake Riley for access to the lake and
oernight .forage of boats.
O •_c ! c %a t oppose the granting of a conditional use permit. It I
eate= traffic pf rbt em . mp oseY by a group w rer - responsibility 2s
s iif .pC . This nuisance to adjacent neighbors is very evident.
It els.. wcs_t' d set a precedent for t.., s to happen anywhere around the
1 ai.e. At the present time it could happen ri 1`.t net door to us if
-- t_;s_i- a <ire ..eden:t were started.
f'i •-'._. F in order to not be too
e
petitious we attach our views that were
at pf e:i ous hearings .
1
1ZG-074
vilAr
-F GE
!:`_r r tom'_ • __ot
9-775 _ Blvd.
V4p _g 1 -5
_r
,�
t
-,Z- 7S - 1
I
I
3
C
'
3127 Fourth St. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
February 21 , 1986
To: Council Members of the City of Chanhassen
' From: George and Marian Deis.':tt
Re: Application of S1.evem Burke (Senn . Slope) tc obtain a
conditional use permit for a recreational beach lot
' and to allow overn i ght storage of 4 boats and to
construct a storage bui l di ne on prpoerty zoned R-1
and located at 9241 La! e Riley Blvd.
Once again (3rd hear r:p) we are opposed to any use of the
abe :e prcpert" other them for =_ino s family dwell i -ap. If a
'
conditional use permit i c cranted�for access to the lade b:.
a Sunny Slope .croup right between two modern lovely f emi l`.
residences, a' l the prc: rcticn and Secerit'` one feels under
' R-1 zonit:'� ,as+lost . If it can. f';=....11. -.=n here it Set= a
Fr s-:=edent. and can anvt`: around the _ aJ:e.
A: I the an-1=_. rf a r
c=ople
t.- ce,ct ended with : .'t `l of r---P7
f o`r which it i=
' WE h_:e a very s 'eci el interest in opposi ne this a-r=== for
we no.-t have an empty - ft. lot r i ghtnext rioor to u= a= a.
result of a fire. If ti- i = conditional use were granter', it
' wo_ld bE herd to dew . the same for 922- Lake Rile-. Blvd.
In order *-ct to re===* to-a c..eh ..o ere erclo=_;--c lett
Er=
pre=senter to previ o..ts F'1 a:�ni nc rr.n; s on heari nos.
s- Ou-
feelin =ir the -
' M . d.� M-s. r. P. r W , t*
There. ore= L'-*_ ''.
922'= 1
1
I
ti
3127 Fourth St. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
August 13, 1984 i
To: Council Members of the City of Chanhassen
From: George and Marian DeWitt (Lot 31, Shore Acres) i
Re: Sunny Slope Home Owners Association application for Conditional
Use Permit to allow certain improvements to be made to the
Association's Recreational Beach Lot located at 9241 Lake riley
Boulevard (Lot 37 ShoreAcres) .
First, the above wording is misleading. From the wording it '
appears the Association already has a conditional use permit to use
this lot as a recreational beach lot. This is not true. The lot
is zoned R-1, single family dwelling. In 1978 this same request
was made to use this lot as an access to the Lake. After lengthy
hearings and strong opposition, the developer of Sunny Slope
withdrew his petition. The lot is still R-1, single family
dwelling.
In spite of this, and with full knowledge of its illegality,
residents of Sunny Slope have been launching boats, put in a dock
and are storing boats there overnight. When a complaint was made
by the neighbors, the organization is now attempting to legalize
this activity by applying for a conditional use permit and
variances to that permit.
We are opposed to any use of this property other than for single
family dwelling. If a conditional use permit is granted for access
to the lake by 12 families right between two modern lovely family
residences, all the protections and security one feels under R-1
zoning are lost. If it can happen here, it sets a precedent and
can happen anywhere around the lake.
At the present time there are only four families living in Sunny
Slope and their use of this lot for boat access is causing problems
for the nearby residents.
When the developer of Sunny Slope bought lot 37 in Shore Acres he
knew full well how that lot was zoned. If he has mislead residents
of Sunny Slope to thinking they had lake rights, their problem is
with the developer, not the residents of Shore Acres. i
Since the 1978 hearings, there have been some changes. A new
conditional use has been added which seems to fit this group's
purpose better. There is no request for a clubhouse. But the
significant fact has not been changed. And that is, that a R-1
single family lot would be used by 12 families. All the problems
and traffic of 12 families and their company would have to be
contended with instead of one family for which it is zoned.
i
s _
1
We strongly hope you will decide that R-1 single family zoning does
provide the security it was meant to provide - and deny the use of
1 this lot by 12 families.
Very truly yours
. . 7)`w,4
George B. and F. Marian DeWitt
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
lk
t
THOUGHTS PRESENTED AT PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING ON 4-12-178 CONCERNING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY ALLEN GRAY
We li ve with i n th e footage necessary for notification of
the conditional use permit, so we are concerned. We are
concerned because of our nearness to the lot under consid-
eration, and we are concerned about the precedent it may
serve for future requests of this nature.
Our words tonight apply to lot 37 of Shore Acres Addition. '
In no way do we wish to detract from what I understand is
a fine project in the making behind us. Mr. Gray or his
buyers, and we who live in Shore Acres, are going to be
neighbors, and we do want to maintain a spirit of neighbor-
liness. But good neighbors should have the right to be frank
and speak out if they feel their interests are threatened. '
Shore Acres is in an R 1 zoning area. Of all zoning class-
ifications, this one is most "sacred". It is the classif-
ication for the single family dwelling. It is the area, where,
if you buy or rent, you can expect to live in the midst of
other single family dwellings without the threat of a different
type of intrusion.
Concern for one ' s home and property probably comes second
only to concern far the members of the family. So when you
change anything that threatens the enjoyment of one' s home
and property, it is not a trivial thing. Zoning departments
recognize this, and Chanhassen' s department states it this
way. "Conditional uses are those generally not suitable in
a particular zoning district, but which may under some cir-
cumstances be acceptable. And it then lists a number of
procedures, all of which are being followed, and then some
standards which should be met. It is on these points that
as residents of Shore Acres,we differ.
We feel that the granting of this conditional use permit
does affect the safety, comfort, and general welfare of
those in the vicinity. We feel it will be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity.
We feel it will diminish property values in the vicinity.
There are persons here tonight who are speaking to the specifics '
of these things - the noise, the traffic, the safety, the
effect on land values and the like, so I will not go into
detail. But the overall effect is that one who thought he
was living next to a single family lot is now living next
to a recreational thoroughfare. You can landscape it beauti-
fully, you can place the most sturdy dock and racks on it,
you can build an esthetic clubhouse --- but it it will be
used by many people, not just one family.
1
e �r
�. 2.
Our sympathies go out to those who live in close
proximity to this lot. And each of us can say "But for
' the grace of God, there sit I". If a conditional use
permit is granted, it could happen to any one of us in
the future.
' The last point I would like to make is that this conditional
use request does not come from within the community in
' which the lot is located, but from an outside community.
The surrounding neighbors have no control. Now I am not
bringing this up to suggest that if we had a share in the
control this would make it acceptable. I am merely stating
' that conditional use permits should be carefully handed
out and should come perhaps as a request from those in the
area, not imposed upon them.
1
Mr. and Mrs. G.P. DeWitt
Shore Acres, lot 31
d // /�� I